RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test: sulfate resistance, alkali-silica reaction and freeze–thaw resistance of alkali-activated concretes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The RILEM technical committee TC 247-DTA ‘Durability Testing of Alkali-Activated Materials’ conducted a round robin testing programme to determine the validity of various durability testing methods, originally developed for Portland cement based-concretes, for the assessment of the durability of alkali-activated concretes. The outcomes of the round robin tests evaluating sulfate resistance, alkali-silica reaction (ASR) and freeze–thaw resistance are presented in this contribution. Five different alkali-activated concretes, based on ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, or metakaolin were investigated. The extent of sulfate damage to concretes based on slag or fly ash seems to be limited when exposed to an Na2SO4 solution. The mixture based on metakaolin showed an excessive, very early expansion, followed by a dimensionally stable period, which cannot be explained at present. In the slag-based concretes, MgSO4 caused more expansion and visual damage than Na2SO4; however, the expansion limits defined in the respective standards were not exceeded. Both the ASTM C1293 and RILEM AAR-3.1 test methods for the determination of ASR expansion appear to give essentially reliable identification of expansion caused by highly reactive aggregates. Alkali-activated materials in combination with an unreactive or potentially expansive aggregate were in no case seen to cause larger expansions; only the aggregates of known very high reactivity were seen to be problematic. The results of freeze–thaw testing (with/without deicing salts) of alkali-activated concretes suggest an important influence of the curing conditions and experimental conditions on the test outcomes, which need to be understood before the tests can be reliably applied and interpreted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".